Were you more likely to die in the Pacific Front or Western Front

[The Exorcist]

Originally Posted by IDonT4

If I was an infantry company tasked to take a position from an enemy platoon, I would prefer that enemy platoon be manned by Germans instead of the Japanese. At least there is a possibility that they would surrender.

True enough... but I'm still waiting to see the math here, done right.

How many send we send to the ETO vs PTO. How many died there?
Same question for the UK.

[Egorka]

Originally Posted by Half Pint John

Pacific Area Theaters:
Alaska Department - 877
China-Burma-India – 2,479
China (Separate) - 227
India-Burma (Separate) – 1,021
Pacific Theater – 50,385
Strategic Air Forces – 2,148
TOTAL – 120,186

Is there a missing line here?
You don't get 120K if you sum up all the individual theater values.

Atlantic Theaters: 182,893
Pacific Theaters: 171,076

So no, not a 3:1 ratio.

I guess the question is not just the ratio between the total number for ETO and PTO, but rather how the death ratios for each TOP correspond to each other.
In other words we need to introduce the total number of service men for each TOP.

[Taz86]

Im not in a finding numbers mood at the moment, but would't the correct calculation be something like: The amount of casualties (in this case killed) sustained by the number of units? If an army of two million men suffers 100,000 casualties you were of course much more likely to survive than in an army of 500,000 men that sustained the same number of casualties.

So if we take U.S ground forces, how many (fighting) soldiers were there in the pacific and how many in the european theatre as a whole during the entire time of operations? And how many in these units were killed during this time?

[lcm1]

Originally Posted by Taz86

Im not in a finding numbers mood at the moment, but would't the correct calculation be something like: The amount of casualties (in this case killed) sustained by the number of units? If an army of two million men suffers 100,000 casualties you were of course much more likely to survive than in an army of 500,000 men that sustained the same number of casualties.

So if we take U.S ground forces, how many (fighting) soldiers were there in the pacific and how many in the european theatre as a whole during the entire time of operations? And how many in these units were killed during this time?

Did the original thread on this topic say JUST America? If not you have to take an overall view on ALL the Countries that took part in both the Far east and Europe to get some sort of average. It is this type of mail that unintentionally gives the ignorant the impression that America stood alone in WW2! (And believe me there are some that do think that, thanks to Hollywood!!) lcm1

[Taz86]

Originally Posted by lcm1

Did the original thread on this topic say JUST America? If not you have to take an overall view on ALL the Countries that took part in both the Far east and Europe to get some sort of average. It is this type of mail that unintentionally gives the ignorant the impression that America stood alone in WW2! (And believe me there are some that do think that, thanks to Hollywood!!) lcm1

From my point of view this thread seemed from early on 'meant' to focus on U.S forces, unintentionally or not, be that as it may, however the math is the same however you choose to look at it.

Axis forces vs allied forces. The number of troops at any chosen theatre and the number killed there.

[lcm1]

Originally Posted by Taz86

From my point of view this thread seemed from early on 'meant' to focus on U.S forces, unintentionally or not, be that as it may, however the math is the same however you choose to look at it.

Axis forces vs allied forces. The number of troops at any chosen theatre and the number killed there.

No,I beg to differ it is not the same however you look at ,OK if you are simply quoting American forces and the original thread was solely American, but if it was all the Western forces you must include them all otherwise your figures would not mean a thing! lcm1

[NoPref]

Originally Posted by lcm1

No,I beg to differ it is not the same however you look at ,OK if you are simply quoting American forces and the original thread was solely American, but if it was all the Western forces you must include them all otherwise your figures would not mean a thing! lcm1

I agree. The original post did not state any nationality, just a general "you". The discussion shifted toward Americans, but I interpret "you" to mean the Allies, since the Axis forces stayed in their local theater of operations.

The simple formula would divide the total number of deaths in each theater by the total number who served and compare the percentage results between the Pacific and Europe.

That still gets a bit tricky. How should we account for military stationed in Australia? Darwin was bombed and the northern part of the country was considered threatened until the Japanese were pushed back in New Guinea and the Solomons. Do we include Queensland and Northern Territories in the theater? For the entire war or just until the Japanese get pushed out of bomber range? Or do we include the entire country for the entire war, which would serve to factor all the "safe" rear echelon jobs into the equation?

How about the east coast of the US? Anti-submarine air patrols flew out of there for much of the war after 1941, and convoy escorts had their home ports there. Count the ship and air crews only?

Very simple sounding question from the OP, but complicated to even define the parameters for determining an answer.

[Pruitt]

The Germans also had U-Boats in the Gulf of Mexico (rumor was some went up the Mississippi and went ashore in New Orleans) and in the Caribbean. They also sent raiders off South Africa and into the Indian Ocean. The Germans even tried to put weather stations in Greenland and we took them out.

The Japanese even sent high altitude balloons with small incendiary bombs attached. They wanted to set the Western Forests on fire.

Very few areas did not see some fighting!

Pruitt

[Taz86]

Originally Posted by lcm1

No,I beg to differ it is not the same however you look at ,OK if you are simply quoting American forces and the original thread was solely American, but if it was all the Western forces you must include them all otherwise your figures would not mean a thing! lcm1

Of course one has to include all allied forces if one is counting all allied forces, read what I said. Its still the same thing, total number of mobilised troops and count the killed in each theatre. And since the thread for sure meant the western and pacific theatre I can hardly see how people killed outside the american coast can matter, since its an entirely different theatre. Same war yes, but not the same theatre of operations. BUT if you want to look at it as in a war as a whole; still take military personal killed and mobilised on each front. If you want to count allied domestic fronts, do it, if not dont. I personally would not count weather stations in Greenland or garrisons in Australia as fighting in the western or pacific front. BUT counting allies, axis and they're domestic fronts you DO have to take in to account chinese forces and japanese troops stationed against them (you can not count domestic for one side and not the other) and THIS WILL greatly alter the balance for both axis and allied forces concerning mobilised troops and casualties. Same goes with the USSR, for example personal killed in the arctic convoys and so on, western front, eastern or atlantic (is atlantic western?), people killed in the air war over Germany (Air crews and AA gunners, and what about trains carrying troops, soldiers at hospitals or on home leave getting killed by bombs?), western, eastern, both or simply german homefront? How about allied aircrews flying from western europe and landing at the eastern front? The Soviet invasion of Manchuria 1945??? This list can be continued in infinitum.

It depends on what answer you are looking for. But I can guarantee that you will never ever ever ever find a satisfying number if you want to include every available figure. If you would like to get closer in answering this thread you have to draw the line somewhere. Every researcher has to do this.

[lcm1]

Originally Posted by Taz86

Of course one has to include all allied forces if one is counting all allied forces, read what I said. Its still the same thing, total number of mobilised troops and count the killed in each theatre. And since the thread for sure meant the western and pacific theatre I can hardly see how people killed outside the american coast can matter, since its an entirely different theatre. Same war yes, but not the same theatre of operations. BUT if you want to look at it as in a war as a whole; still take military personal killed and mobilised on each front. If you want to count allied domestic fronts, do it, if not dont. I personally would not count weather stations in Greenland or garrisons in Australia as fighting in the western or pacific front. BUT counting allies, axis and they're domestic fronts you DO have to take in to account chinese forces and japanese troops stationed against them (you can not count domestic for one side and not the other) and THIS WILL greatly alter the balance for both axis and allied forces concerning mobilised troops and casualties. Same goes with the USSR, for example personal killed in the arctic convoys and so on, western front, eastern or atlantic (is atlantic western?), people killed in the air war over Germany (Air crews and AA gunners, and what about trains carrying troops, soldiers at hospitals or on home leave getting killed by bombs?), western, eastern, both or simply german homefront? How about allied aircrews flying from western europe and landing at the eastern front? The Soviet invasion of Manchuria 1945??? This list can be continued in infinitum.

It depends on what answer you are looking for. But I can guarantee that you will never ever ever ever find a satisfying number if you want to include every available figure. If you would like to get closer in answering this thread you have to draw the line somewhere. Every researcher has to do this.

I am old but not senile in your previous you implied that your figures were based on American numbers and only basing it on one nations losses cannot cover all. I think it is rather a pointless thread anyway for losses depend on battles and battles whether they take place in Europe or the far east cause casualties and death,irrespective of where you are,you are just as easily dead!! lcm1

[lcm1]

Originally Posted by Taz86

Of course one has to include all allied forces if one is counting all allied forces, read what I said. Its still the same thing, total number of mobilised troops and count the killed in each theatre. And since the thread for sure meant the western and pacific theatre I can hardly see how people killed outside the american coast can matter, since its an entirely different theatre. Same war yes, but not the same theatre of operations. BUT if you want to look at it as in a war as a whole; still take military personal killed and mobilised on each front. If you want to count allied domestic fronts, do it, if not dont. I personally would not count weather stations in Greenland or garrisons in Australia as fighting in the western or pacific front. BUT counting allies, axis and they're domestic fronts you DO have to take in to account chinese forces and japanese troops stationed against them (you can not count domestic for one side and not the other) and THIS WILL greatly alter the balance for both axis and allied forces concerning mobilised troops and casualties. Same goes with the USSR, for example personal killed in the arctic convoys and so on, western front, eastern or atlantic (is atlantic western?), people killed in the air war over Germany (Air crews and AA gunners, and what about trains carrying troops, soldiers at hospitals or on home leave getting killed by bombs?), western, eastern, both or simply german homefront? How about allied aircrews flying from western europe and landing at the eastern front? The Soviet invasion of Manchuria 1945??? This list can be continued in infinitum.

It depends on what answer you are looking for. But I can guarantee that you will never ever ever ever find a satisfying number if you want to include every available figure. If you would like to get closer in answering this thread you have to draw the line somewhere. Every researcher has to do this.

Don't include me in the 'you' mate,I do not wish to know the exact numbers,I served in Europe and what I saw was enough for me,I can do without your figures. lcm1

[Hansika]

120k? 180k? Those numbers are very funny when you take a look at eastern front... I would say that Germans on ground were tougher enemies than Japanese. They had much better firepower (in some fields better than allies.) Germans made their life easier with MGs while Japanese were charging with bayonets...